Search results

Despite the mounting evidence of gazelles’ higher economic contribution, there is no consensus on whether and how to support gazelles. In this chapter, we therefore discuss varied gazelle policy views as well as the inherent challenges of supporting gazelles. Here, we draw on relevant academic literature as well as on international policy examples. Additionally, we analyze Germany’s gazelle policy stance by triangulating information collected from the literature, practical policy examples and interviews, we carried out with German support agencies and policymakers. Though Germany’s general policies and framework conditions create necessary conditions for gazelles to emerge, they are insufficient to guarantee their prevalence. Moreover, Germany’s policy approach of encouraging new firm formation and self-employment and its focus on the financial support for small as well as technology or innovation-oriented firms is not consistent with the state-of-the-art knowledge about gazelles. Using the case of Germany, we argue that general entrepreneurship policies and high-growth entrepreneurship (gazelle) policies are distinct approaches having divergent and sometimes conflicting objectives and support mechanisms, which need to be synchronized to be effective.

This chapter critically discusses the many positive aspects that are ascribed to gazelle firms by exploring the external effects and dark sides of high firm growth. On the background of the more general debate on purpose versus profit as a firm’s mission, the chapter theoretically elaborates on the dichotomy between quantitative and qualitative growth of gazelles. This is followed by a case-based illustration and exploration as to how quantitative and qualitative growth interrelates in gazelles and what are impediments for high growth that is purpose driven. The chapter closes with a discussion of the Janus-faced nature of gazelles and how their corporate citizenship can be enhanced.

This chapter introduces the readers to the theme of the book. The chapter starts by outlining the socio-economic importance of gazelles and by discussing definitional challenges of what gazelles or high-growth firms are. The chapter then points to the academic relevance and to unresolved issues in international gazelle research. The chapter closes with an outline of the three blocks and eight chapters of the book.

It is now widely accepted that the institutional interventions of states are a foundational influence on the dynamics of organizational forms. But why do states act? In this chapter, we apply the behavioral theory of the firm to develop an explanation of state actions based on the fact that they are boundedly rational rivals. The instrument of state competition we examine is the founding of business incubators, a primary tool in the entrepreneurial strategy of economic development. We predict that business incubators are more likely to be founded in a state when (1) the state falls behind comparable states in the indicators of economic development; (2) the state falls behind its own historical trajectories of economic development; (3) the state has slack resources in the form of budget surpluses; (4) comparable and rival states adopt incubators as a development strategy. Our analysis of incubator foundings in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania throughout 1980–2004 supports all of these propositions.

Within the last two decades, entrepreneurship education has become institutionalized in Germany. It is offered as a stand-alone program or as part of a business degree, combining academic knowledge, practical skills, and personal development to enhance the entrepreneurial success of university graduates. While entrepreneurship education has experienced similar growth worldwide, its emergence in Germany is closely tied to the country’s political and economic developments. The significance of entrepreneurship education for a thriving entrepreneurial ecosystem and contemporary economic policy has been instrumental in advancing its academic recognition. This chapter provides a historical analysis of the academization of entrepreneurship in Germany. It explores the recursive and often idiosyncratic processes involving state and financial institutions, companies, and universities that have created, respecified, and mutually reinforced a subdiscipline and field of study. Academic entrepreneurship knowledge successively not only became relevant for starting a business but also for employment within the entrepreneurial infrastructure and beyond. This chapter follows a chronological order, highlighting three key stages in the academization of entrepreneurship education. First, the academic, financial, and political roots (I) of entrepreneurship up until the 1970s. Second, it explores the transformation (II) of entrepreneurship into a viable policy alternative and the challenges faced in establishing complementary research and education in higher education institutions during the 1980s. Finally, it sketches the institutionalization (III) of entrepreneurship as a central driver of government economic policy, allowing for the late bloom of entrepreneurship education and research at universities around the turn of the millennium.

Consumption is a new central issue, globally, driven by more visible consumption concerns of citizens. For instance, entertainment and the environment rise as political issues, while workplace issues decline. To link individual choice with public and urban context, we outline a theory of consumption in specific propositions. They start with individual and personal influence characteristics in shopping and political decisions, then add socio/cultural characteristics. Three cultural types adapted from Elazar are Moralistic, Individualistic, and Traditional – which shift individual patterns. For instance moralistic persons favor more environmentally sensitive consumption, even boycotting cars, TV, and paper towels, backing green groups and parties. Such protest acts via personal consumption are ignored by many past theories. Individualists instead favor more conspicuous, status-oriented consumption, à la Veblen, or the modernism of Baudelaire and Benjamin. For traditionalists, consumption reinforces the past, via family antiques and homes, ritualized and less individualized. The three types help interpret differences in consumption politics by participants in different social movements, cities, and countries.

There seems to be some cognitive dissonance between the rapid growth of entrepreneurship education programs in higher education and the insignificant, if not negative, correlation to new venture creation, especially among the college-aged and recent graduate demographic (Fairlie, Reedy, Morelix, & Russell, 2016; National Chamber Foundation, 2012). Is a bachelor’s degree in entrepreneurship worth it? No, it is argued here that a bachelor’s degree in entrepreneurship is not worth it for a student whose goal is to be an entrepreneur by founding his or her own venture for two main reasons. First, the most important part of an entrepreneur is the set of the dispositional traits that enable them to acquire and operationalize any skill or knowledge quickly, and these cannot be learned through instruction in any degree program. Second, a major in entrepreneurship necessarily means concentrating the majority of study on the diverse, practically infinite, set of possible skills and knowledge needed, at the expense of a deep focus on an area of specialized knowledge from which high quality opportunities can be discovered. Almost any other bachelor’s degree program offers more in terms of opportunity discovery. Given these points, almost any other bachelor’s degree is worth more to a student whose goal is to found a new venture, as they ultimately allow for the discovery of higher quality opportunities for venture creation.

Although ethical custom has long recognized man’s responsibility to the environment, the contribution of traditional economic entrepreneurship to the sustainability challenge has been limited. Indeed, it can be shown to have had a negative impact at times and although new business models have been introduced, addressing environmental, humane and social issues, questions have been raised about whether entrepreneurship and sustainability are compatible. Accordingly, this chapter proposes a new business model that integrates or harmonizes these four more traditional entrepreneurship models currently applied independently. The model is founded on general systems thinking and the principle of harmony. It is based on a case study of real-life commercial startup operation, SEKEM Holding in Egypt. The case, which is based on secondary data and non-participant observation, is discussed in detail as is the resultant proposed Harmonious Entrepreneurship model. A definition is provided together with three further case examples that exemplify and demonstrate the model in different geographical and sectoral contexts. Each is based on a “bleeding edge,” innovative technological solution to the problem being addressed and the study concludes that:

• for entrepreneurship to address the sustainability challenge successfully a new entrepreneurship paradigm is needed that abandons the Friedman doctrine of being about making as much money as possible;

• the paradigm should incorporate systems thinking and operate both ethically and in accordance with the harmony principle, ensuring that profit, people and planet are harmonized; and

• the model can be implemented simultaneously, and not incrementally as previous research has suggested.

for entrepreneurship to address the sustainability challenge successfully a new entrepreneurship paradigm is needed that abandons the Friedman doctrine of being about making as much money as possible;

the paradigm should incorporate systems thinking and operate both ethically and in accordance with the harmony principle, ensuring that profit, people and planet are harmonized; and

the model can be implemented simultaneously, and not incrementally as previous research has suggested.

Border crossing between systemic and racial identity theories can contribute to systemic research on Black therapists work with White families.

Questionnaires were used to gather data from 29 Black, Asian and Mixed Heritage therapists in order to test the significance of variables associated with transgenerational advice, socialisation experience, professional training and therapists’ perception of successful outcomes (n=29). The study concluded that White clients were associated with the contact and disintegration statuses at the beginning of therapy, and that Black therapists were associated with being at least two racial identity statuses in advance of their White clients. In addition, results showed that there was a significant association with eye contact and White clients across all racial identity statuses in therapy, and that the therapist’s age was significantly associated with therapeutic experiences, length of therapeutic practice and the belief in working with unintentional racism in therapy. The outcome of this study will have policy implications in terms of clinical practice and supervision.